Editor: Terminal 2 project has many flaws



Re: Numbers show need for port expansion (Optimist, Sept. 26th online story)

So Port CEO Silvester claims the container volumes for 2021 provide more justification for his Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project. 

The devil as usual is in the details. 

The first question to be asked - what percentage of this traffic is U.S.? With congestion at U.S. ports, is Vancouver handling more U.S. containers which adds nothing to the Canadian economy other than more pollution and more congestion? U.S. traffic through Vancouver had been between 20 to 25 per cent of their total volumes. At the moment it could be a higher percentage. 

In addition, the totals mask the fact that the numbers of empty containers moving is much higher. 

Of course Mr. Silvester won’t tell you this. 

Then there is the issue of the significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated that will result if Terminal 2 is built. 

Add to that the fact that Prince Rupert has plans to add more than enough terminal capacity - as much as five or six million containers - more than enough to satisfy Canada’s trading needs for decades to come without causing the environmental damage that will result from terminal 2. 

Why, when Environment Canada scientists have repeatedly said Terminal 2 will result in environmental damage that will be immediate, continuous, irreversible and cannot be mitigated, is the Port of Vancouver continuing to push this flawed project?

This article originally titled Letters: T2 project has many flaws written by Roger Emsley was originally published in Delta Optimist.

Watch: Port of Vancouver’s costly errors for Canadian taxpayers